The conversation around culture versus structure in inequalities research is as old as the field itself. It would not be much of a stretch to consider Durkheim’s arguments structural ones. Conversely, Weberian ideas about religions impact on society would probably be classified as cultural ones. That is, if it is at all possible to clearly distinguish between these two things.
This essay hopes to investigate the relationships between cultural and structural explanations of race, class, and gender. First, by discussing what is meant by “explanation”. Second, by identifying similarities and differences between the two as well approaches, and the understandings gained by the theories. Finally, I situate myself among the literature, and try to parse where I fit.
Explanations
To begin, I want to deconstruct the question momentarily. Culture and structure are massive concepts in sociology. One’s that have been debated for decades. They have also been co-opted in many ways to mean different things. For instance, the sociology of culture, cultural studies, and what is meant by culture all mean different things. Similarly, what is meant by structure can be opaque when diving through literature.
It can also be difficult to determine what types of readings would be considered “explanations” of inequalities, versus reactions to inequalities. Part of the dense and comingled nature of culture and structure with regard to inequalities is that they all operate simultaneously, and are being structured and restructured based off of each other. In this regard, what may be studies of culture and inequality (i.e. Code of the Street by Anderson), I would argue are reactions to inequalities, not attempting to explain how these inequalities exist in the first place. Many grapple with the ideas of individual action, culture, structure, and institutions. But here I will present the theories as to whether they give primacy to explaining inequality through either structure or culture. With that basic understanding in mind, we can begin to analyze these approaches.
Early Theorists Conception of Culture and Structure
A good place to start dealing with structural explanations of inequality is Marx (2000) who postulated that the struggle over the means of production by the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were at the root of all inequality. Later to be critiqued as “essentialism”, Marx traced all social problems back to material resources and the economy. Specifically, the capitalist system of extracting excess labor for profit was at the core of his theory, which in turn produces alienation.
One of the first sociologists (as many argue Marx is an economist/philosopher) to deal with structural explanations for inequality would have been Durkheim who identified the division of labor in society as a major cause of social problems. In The Division of Labor and Suicide he constructed concepts like anomie, the feeling of normlessness or disruption, to the changes in society from mechanical to organic solidarity (Durkheim 2014). All of this to say that it is related to larger structural factors rather than cultural ones, although one could argue that later works of Durkheim like The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Durkheim and Swain 2008) involve pieces of cultural explanations. This is not to say, that Durkheim was as critical as Marx, as he did not seek to reduce or eradicate inequality in a similar fashion.
Weber’s The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Weber 2002) may have been the first to use a form of cultural explanation. Here, Protestantism helped rationalize the ideas of the economy. Although Weber included cultural explanations for capitalism, he ultimately still was of the viewpoint that the materialism and economy structured these ideas.
As a whole, early social theorists had different goals in mind for studying society. Their concept of culture didn’t exist as we understand it, fully fleshed out today. This isn’t to say that much of this work wasn’t concerned with the interplay between agency and structure, they most definitely are. But other than class analysis, many of them did not truly touch on race or class in the same way as we do today.
Contemporary Cultural Explanations of Inequality
On the whole, contemporary ideas about inequality that focus on culture are usually related to race and class (wealth disparity) or race and educational achievement. I will discuss both of these individually, although the general idea is remarkably similar.
To begin, current cultural explanations of differences in wealth and poverty emphasize different aspects of African American culture. Examples of these aspects include family arrangement (female head of household), attitudes, and values. Many of the theorists below do mention the impact of structure on this culture, but foreground culture in their theory.
Historic/classic versions of this type of theorist include Frazier (1957) who argued that affluent African Americans or the “black bourgeoisie” developed an inferiority complex due to white racism and ideology. Because of this, they had extreme lifestyles that included partying, sex, and gambling as well as excessive consumption. This cultural behavioral pattern stunted the economic prosperity of middle class African Americans, and due to their pathological self-hate because they aren’t white.
As far as race and class go, William Julius Wilson is one of the most influential sociologists of the last few decades. His books The Declining Significance of Race, The Truly Disadvantaged, When Work Disappears, and More than Just Race have created vast debate among social scientists. Wilson argues that female headed households are one factor that generate poverty… Need to include more here.
Wilson (2011) has had an interesting relationship with cultural theories, and has somewhat changed positions throughout his career with regard to race and class. In some cases, like When Work Disappears, he discusses discrimination and critiques conservative biological explanations of poverty. But for the most part, Wilson regularly disregards structural racism and its history in Chicago, where he has base his studies. In When Work Disappears, he doesn’t struggle with segregation or housing discrimination, like we will see in Massey and Denton (1995).
Unsurprisingly, considering Wilson privileges and foregrounds the ideas of class, his prescriptions for changing the structures and cultures that he is changing is mostly educational in nature, and extending off of his initial hit book The Declining Significance of Race, they are generally “colorblind” changes. So in some ways, Wilson interrogates the ideas of structure in his theory, and in other ways he ignores it.
Studies confirm enduring disparities among Asian, African, Latino, and White Americans, with Asian and White Americans scoring better on tests than African and Latino Americans (Kao and Thompson 2003). Considering these disparities have existed for decades, it is understandable that social theorists would want to address it.
Fordham and Ogbu’s (1986) theory of oppositional culture is key in understanding the education gap. The authors claim that racial minorities don’t do well in school to avoid “the burden of being white”. To try and avoid being labeled “white” they would avoid behaviors associated with the classification like speaking standard English or achievement. Of course, these approaches are routinely critiqued by critical theorists in sociology for being reductionist, racist, and lacking analysis of institutional problems.
Though cultural ecological theory is an integrative framework that incorporates societal, community, and individual factors to explain academic achievement differences among racial groups, Ogbu reserves most of his analysis for community forces, such as racial and cultural identity, parental support, Black American culture, and Black peer influence. Black youth, according to the author, have begun to look for alternative mobility in arenas because they feel excluded, looking to role models in sports, drug dealing, and entertainment. In his observations, celebrity athletes and hip hop musicians have become the bane of Black students’ educational achievement, since these students, he believes, spend less time on academic work, and more time on developing their athletic and rapping ability.
Because of Fordham and Ogbu’s diagnosis is based on cultural factors, their solutions to these problems focus on the students and their parents, recommending white values. But Prudence Carter’s (2005) work Keepin it Real shifts this thinking, and critiques the cultural ecological theory. Carter found that many of the same type of students that Ogbu and Fordham studied (low income Blacks and Latinos) viewed their resistance to “acting white” with a refusal to adhere to the cultural default setting in the US. It is also important to note that “acting white” is seen as normative and natural, becomes generic or “unmarked”. Middle-class tastes, dress, physical appearance, and other art forms are the generic. In a Bourdieusian sense, they have cultural capital.
Carters qualitative research of experiences of 68 Black and Latino students in New York is a fantastic example of combining the cultural theories that have been previously discussed with structural ones later. Carter finds that these students believe in occupational and educational success, and that the gap that exists is not from avoiding “acting white” as much as it is a limited familiarity with the dominant cultural ideas, or the environment of the school. Knowing what we do about standardized testing, it makes sense that it really is a test of cultural capital. Much of “IQ” is centered around middle-class white tastes and distinctions. It is the privileged form of education, learning, and knowledge.
Three important groups come out of Keepin it Real. She labels them “noncompliant believers,” “cultural mainstreamers,” and “cultural straddlers.”. The believers buy into the achievement ideology and support (that may be too strong of a word) intellectualism. But, they generally had the widest gaps in aspirations and achievements. Many didn’t expect to go to college. In Carters eyes, this is due to a lack of understanding of the “culture of power”.
Cultural mainstreamers, alternatively, embrace dominant culture wholly. They see assimilation as necessary, and understanding cultural capital as important. Although they have high academic success, and expect to go to college, they face the most charges of “acting white” by other students. Cultural mainstreamers experience a cultural loss by buying into the achievement ideology so fully.
Probably the most well-theorized group is the third, cultural straddlers. These in-between individuals fit between the two identities. They are able to have the cultural styles of both the dominant ideology, as well as the minority subculture. They are able to create cultural meanings on their own to try and “keep it real”. As opposed to Ogbu’s prescription of changes in family and parenting, cultural straddling is Carters prescription.
One of the aspects that I like the most is that Carter consistently is revisiting the structural problems while discussing cultural ideas. Some of the structural issues in education she attacks are desegregation of schools, detracking in schools, and further training for educators. She does, however, also address that minority students need to be well versed in the “culture of power”
Contemporary Structural Studies of Inequality
In contrast to the cultural approaches of Wilson and Ogbu, there are well-known structural approaches to the wealth gap. Massey and Denton (CITE 1993) argue that discrimination in housing markets and home financing are major contributors in racial wealth inequality. Other factors such as “redlining” which is commonly known as the process by which financing was made unavailable to certain “groups” (read: poor or black). The fact that very few African Americans were able to build wealth through the purchasing of a house impeded generational gains. Massey and Denton also discuss the idea of restrictive covenants which are:
‘‘contractual agreements among property owners stating that they would not permit a black to own, occupy, or lease their property … signing the covenant bound themselves and their heirs to exclude blacks from the covered area for a specific period of time” (1993:36)
These restrictive covenants made it impossible for African Americans to get financing through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) program. Structural factors like these have long-running ripple effects on the ability of blacks at all levels to reduce wealth disparities. Oliver and Shapiro ((1995)) go on to highlight strategies of investment that reflect structural barriers, as well as the importance of intergenerational wealth transfer.
More recent research continues to elucidate the insidious nature of structural inequality. Taylor et al (2011) found that the burst of the housing bubble had a larger impact on African American households due to the fact that they had more of their wealth tied up in home equity.
Theorists such as Massey and Denton and Oliver and Shapiro foreground the structure of inequality and its permanence in racial society. Rather than discussing a pathological culture, they understand the rigid nature of class and race in the US. They actively critique cultural theories like Wilson sometimes insinuates.
Situating myself among the literature
It is difficult to completely posit yourself, when trying to be reflexive about positionality in the field of race, class, and gender. But I suppose that throughout consideration of this question I continuously go back to a couple types of projects that I would situate my thinking closest to. If I am being completely honest, some of the first works that drew me to being interested in race and class was Oliver and Shapiro (1995) Black Wealth/White Wealth and more recently Massey and Denton (1993) American Apartheid. Initially, I think, this had to do with being a new sociologist in training, and structural theories seem fresh. Lots of times, there is not a ton of nuance in them, as they critique and take down the systems of oppression. Although both of those works are hugely influential to the way I approach the field, there are a couple of studies that are 1)more recent and 2)more nuanced that I prefer to situate myself near.
The first is Prudence Carter’s (2005) Keepin’ it Real. As I mentioned earlier in this study, Carter is really able to hit both the cultural and the structural issues that are at play with regard to race, class, and ethnicity. One could most definitely consider this work intersectional. So in that regard, I suppose that I give temporal primacy to structural explanations of inequalities. I think it is impossible to envision cultural explanations of inequalities, or even discuss cultural ramifications without first addressing the structural issues of historic discrimination in the US. But, like most good theories, there is some nuance here. There is room within those structures to be able to operate, have some agency, create oppositional culture. I suppose that depending on your political viewpoint you could view this as a positive or negative coping mechanism for the disenfranchised.
With regard to sport, although I haven’t really discussed it up to this point, I really enjoy Brooks and McKail’s (2008) theory of the preferred worker. In a very short time, they are able to accomplish an enormous amount of theoretical lifting. They are making a case for black athletes as “preferred workers” in basketball and football. In a similar fashion to Carter, they set up the structural argument of socioeconomic position and vulnerability. But the theory is also interlaced with a heavy dose of culture, as it discusses the historical implications of the “natural black athlete” who lacks the social and cultural capital to be able to control their own labor. Being at the bottom of the racial hierarchy, there are limited opportunities for upward mobility. Again, the structure here interacts with a culture that values physical dominance, and the respect obtained. Towards the end, Brooks and McKail theorize that this structure could shift at any time, and that black athletes could be replaced with cheaper imported labor from other countries.
In fact, in many ways, we see this situation happening in sport today. So I situate myself somewhere in the middle of the two “poles” of cultural and structural explanations for poverty. Although I haven’t discussed deeply the field of cultural studies, I felt as though I could identify myself by bringing in some of the bigger theorists in the debate.